Thursday, 15 December 2011

Fighting prejudice everywhere...

I am lucky to be in a group that, while commonly hated, doesn't go in for self-loathing. I am a normal, white, law abiding, middle class, married, male with kids.

I value what freedom I have and object to any other UK citizen having less freedom than I do - I also hope (probably in vain) that those with more freedom than I have are working to expand my freedom, the evidence seems to be quite the opposite, those more free than I want to further limit everyone elses freedom.

Gender

I object to being obliged to provide information that the recipient has no right to. A big issue that I have objected to for many years is 'gender' on forms. Unless someone has the 'right' to check my gender for themselves then I do not believe they should be asking me for the information.

I have no gender 'issues' myself, I simply object to unnecessary information being demanded (for train season tickets for instance).

It now transpires that transsexuals have a genuine specific problem with 'gender' being given on forms it can put them in awkward and embarrassing situations. Now there is discussion of allowing them to not answer such questions, or have a special category. My suggestion? Scrap the question all together - like I have suggested all along. Only your partner and doctor NEED to know your gender.

If companies/organisations weren't gathering more information than they needed, this problem would never have arisen in the first place.

Smoking

I don't smoke (I gave up before I got married, in the 1980's). And I prefer not to be in a smokey atmosphere - however I strongly object to the bullying anti-smoking lobby - especially that part I involuntarily finance though my taxes. The bogus argument of 'protecting employees in bars' preventing ALL customers from smoking is devious, dishonest and nasty.

Alcohol Consumption

I read that the recent 'occupy' camp in Brighton had tried to operate a 'Dry Zone' policy (which I take to mean no alcohol on site). I hope, after consideration, they will see the irony of their position.

There are two points as I see it:

Firstly it condemns even moderate drinkers (pretty much everyone?) banning something just because a few have a problem with it is very totalitarian response - not a place I would have thought Occupy would want to put themselves.

Secondly, if someone genuinely is an alcoholic why should that excluded them from the protest? Is occupy launching itself with its own class of 'untouchables' built in to its very core?

I don't expect this view to get much sympathy, but its this lazy approach to equality now that will end up damning it in the future. That such a prejudice could slip into a new protest movement unnoticed shows how far gone society is...

Today drinkers, tomorrow smokers, then they will come for...


Summary

People really should stick up for others while they can - otherwise when you need someone to stick up for you it may be too late.

I don't remember where but someone wisely observed that sticking up for others is never comfortable - because you only need to stick up for others when they are unpopular and everyone else is against them - and so will be against you too.

No comments:

Post a Comment